|
|
D’Ottavio, P., Francioni, M., Trozzo, L., Sedic, E., Budimir, K., Avanzolini, P., et al. (2018). Trends and approaches in the analysis of ecosystem services provided by grazing systems: A review. Grass Forage Sci., 73(1), 15–25.
Abstract: The ecosystem services (ES) approach is a framework for describing the benefits of nature to human well-being, and this has become a popular instrument for assessment and evaluation of ecosystems and their functions. Grazing lands can provide a wide array of ES that depend on their management practices and intensity. This article reviews the trends and approaches used in the analysis of some relevant ES provided by grazing systems, in line with the framework principles of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA). The scientific literature provides reports of many studies on ES in general, but the search here focused on grazing systems, which returned only sixty-two papers. This review of published papers highlights that: (i) in some papers, the concept of ES as defined by the MA is misunderstood (e.g., lack of anthropocentric vision); (ii) 34% of the papers dealt only with one ES, which neglects the need for the multisectoral approach suggested by the MA; (iii) few papers included stakeholder involvement to improve local decision-making processes; (iv) cultural ES have been poorly studied despite being considered the most relevant for local and general stakeholders; and (v) stakeholder awareness of well-being as provided by ES in grazing systems can foster both agri-environmental schemes and the willingness to pay for these services.
|
|
|
|
Hutchings, N. J., Özkan Gülzari, Ş., de Haan, M., & Sandars, D. (2018). How do farm models compare when estimating greenhouse gas emissions from dairy cattle production. Animal, 12(10), 2171–2180.
Abstract: The European Union Effort Sharing Regulation (ESR) will require a 30% reduction in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 2030 compared with 2005 from the sectors not included in the European Emissions Trading Scheme, including agriculture. This will require the estimation of current and future emissions from agriculture, including dairy cattle production systems. Using a farm-scale model as part of a Tier 3 method for farm to national scales provides a more holistic and informative approach than IPCC (2006) Tier 2 but requires independent quality control. Comparing the results of using models to simulate a range of scenarios that explore an appropriate range of biophysical and management situations can support this process by providing a framework for placing model results in context. To assess the variation between models and the process of understanding differences, estimates of GHG emissions from four farm-scale models (DailyWise, FarmAC, HolosNor and SFARMMOD) were calculated for eight dairy farming scenarios within a factorial design consisting of two climates (cool/dry and warm/wet) x two soil types (sandy and clayey) x two feeding systems (grass only and grass/maize). The milk yield per cow, follower cow ratio, manure management system, nitrogen (N) fertilisation and land area were standardised for all scenarios in order to associate the differences in the results with the model structure and function. Potential yield and application of available N in fertiliser and manure were specified separately for grass and maize. Significant differences between models were found in GHG emissions at the farm-scale and for most contributory sources, although there was no difference in the ranking of source magnitudes. The farm-scale GHG emissions, averaged over the four models, was 10.6 t carbon dioxide equivalents (CO(2)e)/ha per year, with a range of 1.9 t CO(2)e/ha per year. Even though key production characteristics were specified in the scenarios, there were still significant differences between models in the annual milk production per ha and the amounts of N fertiliser and concentrate feed imported. This was because the models differed in their description of biophysical responses and feedback mechanisms, and in the extent to which management functions were internalised. We conclude that comparing the results of different farm-scale models when applied to a range of scenarios would build confidence in their use in achieving ESR targets, justifying further investment in the development of a wider range of scenarios and software tools.
|
|
|
|
Schmitz, C., Kreidenweis, U., Lotze-Campen, H., Popp, A., Krause, M., Dietrich, J. P., et al. (2014). Agricultural trade and tropical deforestation: interactions and related policy options. Reg Environ Change, 15(8), 1757–1772.
Abstract: The extensive clearing of tropical forests throughout past decades has been partly assigned to increased trade in agricultural goods. Since further trade liberalisation can be expected, remaining rainforests are likely to face additional threats with negative implications for climate mitigation and the local environment. We apply a spatially explicit economic land-use model coupled to a biophysical vegetation model to examine linkages and associated policies between trade and tropical deforestation in the future. Results indicate that further trade liberalisation leads to an expansion of deforestation in Amazonia due to comparative advantages of agriculture in South America. Globally, between 30 and 60 million ha (5-10 %) of tropical rainforests would be cleared additionally, leading to 20-40 Gt additional emissions by 2050. By applying different forest protection policies, those values could be reduced substantially. Most effective would be the inclusion of avoided deforestation into a global emissions trading scheme. Carbon prices corresponding to the concentration target of 550 ppm would prevent deforestation after 2020. Investing in agricultural productivity reduces pressure on tropical forests without the necessity of direct protection. In general, additional trade-induced demand from developed and emerging countries should be compensated by international efforts to protect natural resources in tropical regions.
|
|
|
|
Holman, I. P., Brown, C., Janes, V., & Sandars, D. (2017). Can we be certain about future land use change in Europe? A multi-scenario, integrated-assessment analysis. Agric. Syst., 151, 126–135.
Abstract: The global land system is facing unprecedented pressures from growing human populations and climatic change. Understanding the effects these pressures may have is necessary to designing land management strategies that ensure food security, ecosystem service provision and successful climate mitigation and adaptation. However, the number of complex, interacting effects involved makes any complete understanding very difficult to achieve. Nevertheless, the recent development of integrated modelling frameworks allows for the exploration of the co-development of human and natural systems under scenarios of global change, potentially illuminating the main drivers and processes in future land system change. Here, we use one such integrated modelling framework (the CLIMSAVE Integrated Assessment Platform) to investigate the range of projected outcomes in the European land system across climatic and socio-economic scenarios for the 2050s. We find substantial consistency in locations and types of change even under the most divergent conditions, with results suggesting that climate change alone will lead to a contraction in the agricultural and forest area within Europe, particularly in southern Europe. This is partly offset by the introduction of socioeconomic changes that change both the demand for agricultural production, through changing food demand and net imports, and the efficiency of agricultural production. Simulated extensification and abandonment in the Mediterranean region is driven by future decreases in the relative profitability of the agricultural sector in southern Europe, owing to decreased productivity as a consequence of increased heat and drought stress and reduced irrigation water availability. The very low likelihood (<33% probability) that current land use proportions in many parts of Europe will remain unchanged suggests that future policy should seek to promote and support the multifunctional role of agriculture and forests in different European regions, rather than focusing on increased productivity as a route to agricultural and forestry viability.
|
|
|
|
Xiao, D. P., & Tao, F. L. (2016). Contributions of cultivar shift, management practice and climate change to maize yield in North China Plain in 1981-2009. International Journal of Biometeorology, 60(7), 1111–1122.
Abstract: The impact of climate change on crop yield is compounded by cultivar shifts and agronomic management practices. To determine the relative contributions of climate change, cultivar shift, and management practice to changes in maize (Zea mays L.) yield in the past three decades, detailed field data for 1981-2009 from four representative experimental stations in North China Plain (NCP) were analyzed via model simulation. The four representative experimental stations are geographically and climatologically different, represent the typical cropping system in the study area, and have more complete weather/crop records for the period of 1981-2009. The results showed that while the shift from traditional to modern cultivar increased yield by 23.9-40.3 %, new fertilizer management increased yield by 3.3-8.6 %. However, the trends in climate variables for 1981-2009 reduced maize yield by 15-30 % in the study area. Among the main climate variables, solar radiation had the largest effect on maize yield, followed by temperature and then precipitation. While a significant decline in solar radiation in 1981-2009 (maybe due to air pollution) reduced yield by 12-24 %, a significant increase in temperature reduced yield by 3-9 %. In contrast, a non-significant increase in precipitation during the maize growth period increased yield by 0.9-3 % at three of the four investigated stations. However, a decline in precipitation reduced yield by 3 % in the remaining station. The study revealed that although the shift from traditional to modern cultivars and agronomic management practices contributed most to the increase in maize yield, the negative impact of climate change was large enough to offset 46-67 % of the trend in the observed yields in the past three decades in NCP. The reduction in solar radiation, especially in the most critical period of maize growth, limited the process of photosynthesis and thereby further reduced maize yield.
|
|
